Alabama Employment Law Report : Alabama Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Daniel J. Burnick : Sirote & Permutt Law Firm

The EEOC continues to file suits and reach settlements around the country on a regular basis.  Most recently, the EEOC announced a settlement with a Starbucks store in Arkansas as the result of disability discrimination.  According to KATV, Chuck Hannay was not hired because he has multiple sclerosis.  The EEOC said that Hannay applied for one of six barista positions, but he was never contacted and individuals with less experience and ability were hired instead.  The Starbucks store agreed to pay $80,000, and was enjoined from discriminating on the basis of disability and retaliation.  According to EEOC Regional Attorney Faye Williams, "People with disabilities should have equal opportunities for employment....This case demonstrates the EEOC's commitment to combat discrimination that prevents individuals with disabilities from taking their rightful place in the work force.

In Houston, the EEOC announced that two Sonic Drive-In franchises, with common ownership and management will pay $55,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the EEOC.  According to the EEOC, the primary owner of the franchises "promoted a young, unqualified family member to consecutively higher management positions within the restaurants and allowed him to use his position of power to sexually harass the teens starting in 2006".  The EEOC also contended that this manager permitted and encouraged other male employees and managers to join in the harassing conduct.  When a 17year old female rejected the sexual advance of the manager, he became abusive to her and threatened her with a knife.  In addition to the monetary settlement, the defendants were required to develop and implement new policies and procedures for addressing illegal discrimination in the workplace, and they must be approved by the EEOC prior to implementation.  Jim Sacher, the EEOC's regional attorney, was quoted as saying:  "This lawsuit was filed in order to protect some of our nation's most vulnerable and impressionable workers-teenagers who. often are newcomers to the workplace...."

Practice pointers.  The EEOC continues to be extremely active in pursuing lawsuits and settlements  around the country.  Press releases usually accompany the filing of lawsuits and the settlement of cases, resulting in negative publicity for the companies named.  It is important to implement proper policies and procedures, and train the entire workforce on a regular basis.  This includes family members. 

As mentioned in a previous post, the EEOC is concentrating on harassment of young workers.  As we are still in the summer employment season, now is the prime time for teenagers who have summer jobs to be harassed, discriminated against and otherwise mistreated.  Again, training and monitoring the workforce is a must.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I have written in the past about violence in the workplace and the problems associated with the presence of firearms in the workplace. Last week, in the case of M&J Materials v. Isbell, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals found that summary judgment in favor of the employer was appropriate when a worker, who had suffered a compensable on the job injury, was discharged for pointing a gun at a manager.  Thanks to one of my associates from my Huntsville office, Michael Pillsbury, for the summary of the case:

Stanford D. Isbell (Employee) injured his right wrist on June 15, 2006 while working for M & J Materials, Inc. (Employer). Sometime between April 2006 and June 2006, Employee, while still employed by Employer, brought a firearm to Employer's place of business. While showing the firearm to his co-workers (but not management), Employee aimed the firearm at a member of the management team while the manager's back was to Employee. The firearm did not discharge but this conduct made several co-workers uncomfortable and was soon reported to management who terminated Employee. Upon his termination, Employee filed suit against Employer for retaliatory discharge. Employer's motion for judgment as a matter of law was twice denied and Employer appealed. In order to prove a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, the employee must show: 1) an employment relationship, 2) an on-the-job injury, 3) knowledge on the part of the employer of the on-the-job injury, and 4) subsequent termination of employment based solely upon the injury and the filing of a worker's compensation claim. The Court focused on the fourth element as Employee had provided evidence that the first three elements had been satisfied. Failure by the Employee to prove any of the four elements listed above was grounds for judgment as a matter of law in favor of Employer.

Employer's stated basis for Employee's termination was that Employee had brought a firearm into Employer's place of business. The Court noted that an employer's stated basis for a discharge is sufficient to defeat the fourth element listed above when the facts surrounding the stated basis are undisputed and the employee has not provided substantial evidence that a) the stated reason for termination has been applied in a discriminatory manner to employees who have filed worker's compensation claims, b) company policy does not support the termination, or c) the employer disavowed the stated reason or has otherwise admitted it is pretextual. The Court held that there was no dispute that Employee brought a firearm to Employer's place of business and aimed it at his supervisor. The Court further held that the Employer's policy against possession of weapons in Employer's place of employment was not being applied in a discriminatory manner against employees who had filed a worker's compensation claim. This matter was remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with the determinations of the Court of Civil Appeals.

Practice pointer.  Any time a weapon, be it a gun, knife, baseball bat or other type of weapon, is brandished in the workplace, whether as a joke or as a threat, it must be taken seriously.  There is no room for error in dealing with potentially violent employees.  In the Isbell case, termination was the correct course of action to take to protect all of the employees.

UNPAID SUMMER INTERNS

There is a great deal of discussion in the legal community about the legalities of unpaid summer interns.  It appears as if there will be a crackdown on employers who improperly use unpaid interns to take the place or supplement regular employees.  I have heard on at least 4 occasions in the last 2 weeks about my own relatives and friends who are working in unpaid positions this summer in jobs for which they should be paid.  Sirote & Permutt's next seminar is scheduled for Wednesday, May 19th from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.  It will be presented live in the Birmingham office, and will be shown via video conferencing my Huntsville and Mobile offices.  if you are interested in attending, please feel free to contact me so we can plan accordingly.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last January, I published an entry addressing the Crawford v. Metropolitan Govt of Nashville decision issued by the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court held that an employee who responded to questions during an internal investigation is protected by the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII.  The Supreme Court remanded the case to the District Court in Nashville, and a trial was held 2 weeks ago.  According to an article in the  Chicago Tribune on January 25, Crawford was fired in 2003 after more than 30 years with the school district as the result of her cooperation in the investigation.  "According to court documents, Crawford told investigators Hughes would ask to see her breasts, grab his crotch saying, "You know what's up", and on one occasion pulled her head to his crotch".  Frazier, the HR officer, promised Crawford that she would be protected from retaliation.  On the same day Frazier turned in her report on the allegations finding that no action would be taken against Hughes, Frazier sent a letter to the internal audit department informing them of concerns with the operation of Crawford's payroll department. Crawford has been unable to find another job since her termination in 2003, and she lost her house and car.  She also claimed that her professional reputation had been damaged, due in part to an article in the local newspaper that quoted Metro officials alleging that she might have embezzled money from the department, although there was never a finding of embezzlement.

Practice pointer.  Retaliation can be a very dangerous claim against employers, especially when the facts appear to be as bad as those set out in the Crawford case.  HR professionals must recognize the consequences of retaliating against any employee who is involved in a Title VII investigation, whether they are the accused, the accuser, or a witness.  Supervisory personnel must also be trained not to retaliate in these situations. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Tammy Edwards was awarded 5.79 million dollars by a jury in Federal Court in Montgomery for sexual harrassment, negligent supervision, and retaliation.  The Birmingham News reported late Friday, the jury  awarded $795,000 in compensatory damages, $5 million in punitive damages against Hyundai, and $10,000 against a supervisor, Mike Swindle, who was sued in his individual capacity.   The facts of the case involve Swindle propositioning Edwards for oral sex, sex, and threatened to blow her husband's head off.  Swindle also blocked her was in the hall, bumped against her with his hands behind his back, hugged her and pulled her hair by grabbing her pony tail.  Edwards complained to one supervisor, who took no action although he admitted he knew that Swindle's behavior was often objectionable.  She also complained to another supervisor, who laughed it off and said that Swindle will tell you "stuff you don't want to hear".  For a more detailed explanation of the causes of action and the facts of the case, you can read Judge Thompson's order denying Hyundai's Motion For Summary Judgment dated March 27, 2009. 

This is a textbook case on what can and often does go wrong in the work place.  Edwards missed her sexual harassment training because she was out sick  There was no signed receipt showing that Edward's received the 47 page, single spaced policy manual.  Swindle was transferred to another position, but his physical location was actually closer to Edwards then before he was transferred.  Swindle continues to work at Hyundai.

Practice Pointer.  It is essential that all complaints of harassing behavior be treated seriously, a proper investigation take place, and the appropriate remedial measures be implemented.  For an interesting perspective on how the general public views these type of cases, I would highly recommned that you read the Birmingham News article and the comments from the readers. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

After a relatively quiet 2008 session on employment related issues, the United States Supreme Court issued it's second employment related decision in the past 2 weeks.  Today, in Crawford v. Metropolitan Govt of Nashville, the Supreme Court decided that an employee, who responded to questions during an internal investigation is protected under the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII.  Crawford, a 30 year employee, was questioned by a Metro Government HR manager during an internal investigation concerning rumors of sexual harassment by Mr. Hughes, the school district's employee relations director.  She responded that Hughes had sexually harassed her.  Crawford was terminated shortly thereafter for embezzlement.  She filed her suit under Title VII, alleging that she was retaliated against for reporting Hughes' behavior during the investigation.  Hughes was not disciplined at all.  The court found that the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII extends protection to an employee who speaks out about discrimination not on her own initiative, but in response to questions asked during an internal investigation.  The Court found her response was covered under the "opposition" clause as a disapproving account of Hughes' sexually obnoxious behavior toward her. 

Practice Pointer.  During the course of an investigation, it is imperative that the employer learn of what happened as quickly as possible.  Witnesses, in answering questions during an investigation, are protected by the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII.  Before any adverse action is taken against a witness in an investigation, it is important to confer with HR and/or legal counsel to make sure that the action is not retaliatory. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks